This whole list was just fascinating, thought it was a wonderful attempt to quantify greatness.
Couple of things bothered me, though.
1) Capping career points doesn't really make sense to me, especially as it seems as though only Bradman, Lara and Tendulkar actually maxed out.
2) Personally, one of the main things I look for in a great batsman is a balanced record in a wide variety of conditions, and not just an "away average" which can be misleading and mask a number of weaknesses in a player's record. It's why I consider Ponting,Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis to be so great, because they've scored heavily virtually everywhere, and it should count for something. Some sort of additional modifier where you penalise a batsman for having a sub 40/sub 35 average in a particular country could help.
3) Maxing out quality points for cricketers who have played very few matches(<30 maybe) would even out the field as players like Headley get an unfair advantage here. While obviously a great batsman, averaging 50+ over 100 matches is infinitely more difficult than averaging 60 over 20 odd games.
4) Instead of a "top opposition", the rating should take into consideration "top quality attack". (ie) It should take into account the quality of the bowlers against whom the runs were made instead of the ranking of the opposing team. I don't know if this is possible to formulate right now.... Maybe once you do a top 100 bowlers list?

Overall, though, a fabulous formula and a great list. Excellent work

1. It makes a hell of a difference in the bowler's list. A lot of bowlers have career ratings above 150 and this puts them too far ahead of other greats who played less matches.
2. Good idea, but it doesn't work. At least, it would only work for batsmen who have played a significant amount of matches in all countries. Bradman only played in Australia and England. Are you going to penalise him for not playing in more countries? Are you also going to penalise someone who failed in India but only got to play 2 tests? There are too many variables to make it a relevant factor.
3. I already have. Headley is now at no.13 in the list.
4. I thought about this, but then concluded that you are playing to win the match against the whole opposition, not just the bowling attack. For example, India may be seen as a third-rate bowling attack, but their strength in batting means that your side is under pressure to put a lot of runs on the board (at least in Indian conditions). The formula for this actually incorporates the opposition's team rating along with their bowling rating.

Chasingthedon, in previous editions, I had Ken Barrington in the top 10 and Viv Richards at no.20. That is just wrong and presenting a list based on just bare averages without context was not what I wanted this list to be. I then added significant innings or adjusted the averages. In the end, the list reflects not only who were the best run scorers, but more importantly how much their runs were worth.

1. It makes a hell of a difference in the bowler's list. A lot of bowlers have career ratings above 150 and this puts them too far ahead of other greats who played less matches.
2. Good idea, but it doesn't work. At least, it would only work for batsmen who have played a significant amount of matches in all countries. Bradman only played in Australia and England. Are you going to penalise him for not playing in more countries? Are you also going to penalise someone who failed in India but only got to play 2 tests? There are too many variables to make it a relevant factor.
3. I already have. Headley is now at no.13 in the list.
4. I thought about this, but then concluded that you are playing to win the match against the whole opposition, not just the bowling attack. For example, India may be seen as a third-rate bowling attack, but their strength in batting means that your side is under pressure to put a lot of runs on the board (at least in Indian conditions). The formula for this actually incorporates the opposition's team rating along with their bowling rating.

Chasingthedon, in previous editions, I had Ken Barrington in the top 10 and Viv Richards at no.20. That is just wrong and presenting a list based on just bare averages without context was not what I wanted this list to be. I then added significant innings or adjusted the averages. In the end, the list reflects not only who were the best run scorers, but more importantly how much their runs were worth.

Great answers DoG, and in fairness, even though I rate him higher, Headley does deserve to be closer to 13 than to No.2 and also as you have said pure averages can't tell the whole story in batting and Barrington doesn't deserve to be higher than someone like a Richards. Just a great exercise.

Two questions, I have noticed that your signature has changed, should we expect similar changes after your bowler reveal? With regard to limiting the points of players with lesser number of tests, I assume it would affect Barnes and O'Reilly the same way that it has affected Headley.

Looking forward to the bowler countdown and hope it isn't too far away. My prediction for the top 3 in some order would be Marshall, Murali and McGrath, looking forward to seeing how right/wrong I am.

1. It makes a hell of a difference in the bowler's list. A lot of bowlers have career ratings above 150 and this puts them too far ahead of other greats who played less matches.
2. Good idea, but it doesn't work. At least, it would only work for batsmen who have played a significant amount of matches in all countries. Bradman only played in Australia and England. Are you going to penalise him for not playing in more countries? Are you also going to penalise someone who failed in India but only got to play 2 tests? There are too many variables to make it a relevant factor.
3. I already have. Headley is now at no.13 in the list.
4. I thought about this, but then concluded that you are playing to win the match against the whole opposition, not just the bowling attack. For example, India may be seen as a third-rate bowling attack, but their strength in batting means that your side is under pressure to put a lot of runs on the board (at least in Indian conditions). The formula for this actually incorporates the opposition's team rating along with their bowling rating.

Chasingthedon, in previous editions, I had Ken Barrington in the top 10 and Viv Richards at no.20. That is just wrong and presenting a list based on just bare averages without context was not what I wanted this list to be. I then added significant innings or adjusted the averages. In the end, the list reflects not only who were the best run scorers, but more importantly how much their runs were worth.

1) Understood. I guess it's only fair that bowlers and batsmen get evaluated on the same parameters, so fair enough

2) Bradman wouldn't be penalised. The penalty would only apply to the countries you've actually played in. This actually favours the old timers because modern crcketers are much more likely to have a blot on their overall record given they play in 10-11 countries. I think this parameter is necessary, because just to take an example....great batsman though Dravid is, he failed repeatedly on South African pitches which I don't consider to be a coincidence, and this flaw should reflect in his rating. Put a lower limit on the number of innings if you want, maybe 8 minimum innings. But I seriously hope you include this in the formula for batsmen as well as bowlers.

Would Marshall be considered as great as he is if he averaged 35 in Australia and India but his overall average remained the same because of improved performances elsewhere? No, in my opinion. The greatest of the ATG players have beautifully balanced records where they've proved themselves in a variety of conditions.

Look, I've had another think* abouth this and seriouslt, if you don't want to roger Allan Border you're kidding yourself. how great was he? On reflection, second to Bradman. Nevef mind the sexeh shots all arounf the wicket. let's talk about toughness. Not facing the WI attacks on fgeatherbeds like that pussy Gavaskar, but on real cricket wickets which offered a bit for the quicks. Get him up here, I want to **** him. You can have your FaiLaras or Flopdulkars, when the chips wree down, the great man always stood up. What could Tendulkar or lara do which AB couldn't? Play a back foot drive? Who gives a ****? When the chips were down, like they always were through the mid 80s, AB stood up. This was the era when the WI used to tour here and we'd play them in Brisbane and Perth first up - we'd be 2-0 down inside four days cricket. And this bastard use dto stand up and make runs when no one else would.

Lara's 153? Pfft. What about Border's 98 not out and 100 not out vs WI in 1984? Die in a fire, all you ****s. AB uber alles.

Burgey is championing AB's toughness and then talks about wanting to **** him. Pretty sure AB would be doing the ****ing Burgmeister.........you'd be crying your eyes out wishing you had Michael Clarke behind you

And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

Look, I've had another think* abouth this and seriouslt, if you don't want to roger Allan Border you're kidding yourself. how great was he? On reflection, second to Bradman. Nevef mind the sexeh shots all arounf the wicket. let's talk about toughness. Not facing the WI attacks on fgeatherbeds like that pussy Gavaskar, but on real cricket wickets which offered a bit for the quicks. Get him up here, I want to **** him. You can have your FaiLaras or Flopdulkars, when the chips wree down, the great man always stood up. What could Tendulkar or lara do which AB couldn't? Play a back foot drive? Who gives a ****? When the chips were down, like they always were through the mid 80s, AB stood up. This was the era when the WI used to tour here and we'd play them in Brisbane and Perth first up - we'd be 2-0 down inside four days cricket. And this bastard use dto stand up and make runs when no one else would.

Lara's 153? Pfft. What about Border's 98 not out and 100 not out vs WI in 1984? Die in a fire, all you ****s. AB uber alles.